You are what you wear: A Brief Look at Ancient Sumptuary Laws on Fashion

Nowadays, especially in the Western world, we take for granted the fact that we are free to wear what we like. It comes as an addition to the highly prized freedom of expression since people do not merely communicate with words but also through their lifestyles and their choice of clothing.

Uniforms these days are often used for the purpose of recognition or as a statement of belonging. An officer is easily recognized and his or her role becomes apparent and salient through their specialized uniforms. Similarly, employees of the new Canada Skytrain in Vancouver are quickly spotted because of their distinctive green clothing. As such, whether you are a government employee or an adherent of a private school uniforms help us to avoid confusion and to create a sense of belonging.

Interestingly, particularly during ancient times, there used to be “sumptuary laws”, meaning specific laws or prescriptions for consumption of food and the wearing of clothes. The latter often became a status symbol and people were consciously limited to their choice of garments. In ancient Greece, gold rings were to be avoided by most men, whereas silk was frowned upon during the Roman Empire. The Romans wanted to ensure that social hierarchy was kept in place, that luxury and extravagance was only meant for the nobility and higher classes. The rules were set out clearly and any impostor or anyone feigning to be other by choosing clothes beyond their given status was clearly punished.

To us such laws may seem odd and limiting, too controlling for our tastes. We pride ourselves on wearing what we like. But are we really free to choose? Is not fashion a main factor in many people’s clothing decision? Are there not certain items that are fashionable and “in” despite their awkwardness or their lack of comfort?

Certain styles seem to me rather torture, both to wear and to look at but then again I am not a great follower of fashion or trends. For better or for worse, clothing for me is a necessity and not so much a statement. Yet still, I would not like to have those rights infringed upon or be told what to wear. I really hope that sumptuary laws strictly remain something of the past.

The “Neck Verse” or Why Medieval Gangsters benefited from Literacy

During the Middle Ages, monks had a special status and with it came various privileges. For all the poor people who were struggling for survival (or those who were simply looking for a means of education), monasticism may have indeed been a good option to escape their dreary lives and to be presented not only with meals (and often when lucky even beer) but also with respect and impunity.

Because the monks were said to be doing God’s work on earth people both admired and feared them. In addition, their knowledge of the scriptures or their ability to read opened the gateway to knowledge usually hidden and inaccessible to the common masses. Since they were important in society, they also enjoyed various other privileges, one of them being the fact that should they have committed a crime, they were spared from the regular courts - where torture and hanging were the norm - and were tried in the much more lenient “monk-favorable” ecclesiastical court, a process generally known as the benefit of the clergy.

How did the judges find out who was a monk? Could one simply confide in the monk’s clothing? There were many frauds and thieves out there who might have used the monk’s garments to escape harsh punishment.

As a matter of fact, anybody who could read was often spared from the common courts; it was simply assumed that they were monks. This procedure can be seen as an early form of literacy test; however, one’s life often hung on it. The accused were given a passage of the Bible which they were told to read; should they accomplish it, it was often equated with a pardon.

It turned out that the particular Psalm 51 was later nicknamed the “neck verse” because it had the power to save the “neck” of many a felon. Many of them had simply memorized it to impress the judges and to gain their liberty.

Nonetheless, if the judges had doubts, they could ask the accused to read other passages as well. If they did not know how to read they would be exposed and sentenced to death. Those who could read may have simply gotten away with a penance.

Anyway, two things can be concluded from all of this. One, monks, as said before, were impune and could commit various acts with little or no consequence. Two, if you were a gangster in the Middle Ages you had better brushed up on your reading skills and you could get away with pretty much anything!

Humanity first - Rules and Regulations later

As a general rule I believe that compassion should be first and foremost - right before any rules and regulations. Although I appreciate and understand the necessity of bureaucracy, we should not bury our own humanity under it. Often I have had the comment about how the “system” ruled and could not be changed. It is the system that runs the show and makes all the decisions; we humans are just pawns and followers of it.

Whoever made the rules should however be (made) aware of exceptions. There are always exceptions, as there are always loopholes to any laws. There is no shame in admitting the occasional merited exception. It is also a statement that we are not slaves but have the capacity to make decisions in the face of adversity and with our eyes set on compassion for our fellow beings.

Bureaucracy does not have to become a monster if we are aware of our own powers in the whole process and do not become simple mindless victims. Anarchy is not really an option; constant lawlessness and chaos may work in theory but not in practice and in the end nothing would ever get achieved and no consensus attained.

There are many instances where I have sensed that people lacked any sort of compassion and creativity. I believe compassion is of utmost importance in health care, for example. Whenever I had had to deal with emergency admission I am stunned at the level of bureaucracy before any treatment. In fact, the last time I had not only had to deal with rudeness and apathy, yet was also asked to pay first. In cases of emergency money should never be the first thing whether on the patient’s nor on the health practitioner’s mind.

I do not think I am merely an idealist (I’d rather call myself a humanist). People’s cases should not be seen as numbers or statistics. They are real people suffering for real. Someone who rushes to the emergency room is in a state of confusion; whether they are the afflicted or their loved one is makes no difference here. I hate it when I wanted my son, wife, father to have immediate care and I am stuck there answering silly and unnecessary questions.

Next time if you are in the position of making a decision, think about your own options. Do not be narrow-minded. Our ambulance drivers wanted to have my one-year-old son who had difficulty breathing strapped on the bed for an almost two hour ride to another clinic. It’s for safety they said. No, he cannot be held in his mother’s arms. It is for his own safety even though his stress level might go up and he might get worse. Rules of security and rules and rules and there is nothing we can do about it. In a world where people get sued over anything they are more cautious and stick to the rule. No exceptions.

However, those same people were not heartless. They gave me advice that saved us from an unnecessary ride to a far-away clinic when my son could have medical attention in a close-by hospital. They informed us even though they were not supposed to. And I really appreciate it because despite their tough façade, they were real human beings who shared our moment of distress. For them, even though their hands were tied, humanity did come first. Well, sort of.

Balance and Equilibrium in the Ups and Downs of Life

In my experience, life consists of a continuous cycle of ups and downs, the wheel of fortune, the goddess Fortuna herself in the driving seat. As in the saying “what goes up must come down” there always seems to be a neutralizing factor determined to keep things in check and balance.

When life becomes too comfortable and easy, out of nowhere, a bolt out of the blue we are pulled into the abyss. It comes as a surprise, especially for those who believe they are somehow immune against the pushing and pulling forces of life. Those are the ones that fall the hardest.

From my limited perspective and experience I do find that everything balances out in the end. It is a consolation for times of need and crisis. And it is a constant reminder, for some even a warning, not to take anything for granted since nobody can hold onto those fleeting moments of success and happiness for a long period of time.

The off-beat Johnny Depp character in “Once upon a Time in Mexico” illustrates this tendency best as he takes this “balancing act” into his own hands. For example, when he finds a cook that makes too good a “cochinita pibil”, he decides to go into the kitchen and shoot this cook to restore the old food balance and order again.

This idea of harmony is not something that has appeared in modern times. The ancient Greeks believed strongly that nature balanced itself out and that it always sought harmony, whether it was the body, soul or even physical objects. In fact, our bodies follow the same trend, whether it is temperature, weight, there is always an internal harmonizing balance. It is unfortunately us who overlook such truths of yin-and-yang-equilibrium and we seek the extreme, whether in diet, drink, wealth or pleasure to our own peril - and illusion.

Being versus Acting:The Ethical Dilemma of Morality

When we hear that so-and-so is a “good” person, we automatically assume that the person in question is a virtuous and moral being. But is it enough to simply "be" a good person? Can we simply equate being good with a moral being?

Plato would probably say yes. We should strive for the Good and from this state all else would flow naturally. It is a state of spiritual enlightenment where all the "good" qualities would be reunited in the person. As Socrates put it, evil exists only because of people's ignorance; illuminate them with knowledge of the good and they will act less out of self-interest and more for the common good. Is such a stance valid?

Aristotle disagrees. For him, morality is less a state of being; it is rather action-based. One is, as the existentialists tend to say, the "sum total of one's acts". In such a view neither intentions nor dreams or wishful thinking are of any practical value. That a person always dreamed and meant to become a humanitarian does not make that person a humanitarian. Actions speak louder than words, whereas dreams may be seen as unfulfilled hopes and promises.

There may be a manner to separate the one from the other by applying different terms to each. Normally, when we talk of morality, we mean the “set of beliefs” influencing the individual from outside, with society, culture and religion as their mediators, whereas the study of individual actions of a person would fall into the category of “ethics”. However, there are still shady parts even in ethics. We might act contrary to moral traditions and beliefs, but what about acting contrary to one’s own personal beliefs? What about those instances when our actions contradict our convictions?

Which view is correct? Aristotle may be right by focusing on the concrete actions versus the abstract ideals of an individual. The reason for this is that many people like to portray or pass themselves off as good and moral beings despite a lack of (f)actual evidence for such a claim.

Nonetheless, one should not forget that acts themselves can be deceiving. Many people use this façade to make us see them as moral people, while inside they are driven by ferocious hunger and blind ambition. It is doing good not for its own sake but aimed at furthering one’s needs and desires.

Returning to the initial proposition by Plato and Socrates, we might reach a point of consciousness where the self vanishes in and becomes one with the multitude. Then, being cannot be possibly separated from doing and it would resemble the wu-wei of the Taoist, doing without doing and being constantly and steadily immersed in a good, balanced moral life. In such a case, the internal would become the external and the moral body would be whole and complete.